Emails suggest more illegal recordings by Alameda County Sheriff’s Office

Alameda County Sheriffs Office Sgt. James Russell walks out of Alameda County Superior Court following his first courtroom appearance. Russell is charged with four counts of eavesdropping.

Alameda County Sheriffs Office Sgt. James Russell walks out of Alameda County Superior Court following his first courtroom appearance. Russell is charged with four counts of eavesdropping.

Photo: Megan Cassidy / Megan Cassidy

Photo: Megan Cassidy / Megan Cassidy

Image
1of/3

Caption

Close

Image 1 of 3

Alameda County Sheriffs Office Sgt. James Russell walks out of Alameda County Superior Court following his first courtroom appearance. Russell is charged with four counts of eavesdropping.

Alameda County Sheriffs Office Sgt. James Russell walks out of Alameda County Superior Court following his first courtroom appearance. Russell is charged with four counts of eavesdropping.

Photo: Megan Cassidy / Megan Cassidy

Emails suggest more illegal recordings by Alameda County Sheriff’s Office

1 / 3

Back to Gallery

An Alameda County Sheriff’s Office sergeant charged with illegally recording juvenile detainees’ discussions with their attorney may have also recorded two other privileged conversations, according to internal emails obtained by The Chronicle.

Last fall, Alameda County prosecutors charged Sgt. James Russell with four felony counts of eavesdropping after The Chronicle published body camera footage of him saying he had recorded youths with their attorneys. The allegations stemmed from a single attempted robbery case involving four suspects, but prosecutors said they would review “dozens” of the agency’s juvenile cases as a precaution.

To date, prosecutors have not announced any other allegations of further wrongdoing by Russell.

However, correspondence obtained by The Chronicle through a public records request appears to show Russell admitting to recording privileged conversations on two other occasions.

“(The juvenile) was placed into the interview room and the Public Defender was contacted,” Russell writes of a potential vehicular theft suspect. “The DVR was recording.”

Teresa Drenick, a spokeswoman for the Alameda County district attorney’s office, said prosecutors are aware of the other two other incidents Russell mentions in the Aug. 1 email and an “investigation into the matters has not yet concluded.”

Public Defender Brendon Woods told The Chronicle that his office recently received the same emails between Russell and superiors through a public records request.

“I read these as two separate incidents of recordings here that could be potentially charged and they have not yet,” Woods said. “I think it just brings into question: what else exists out there, and what else could be charged against these officers?

“We were hoping it was one isolated incident, and what we’ve discovered so far is it is more than that.”

Woods said his office is reviewing the cases in question and may take the matter back to a judge. “But I think more importantly than that, if (the Sheriff’s Office) violated any of our clients’ rights, we’re going to be requesting the DA to dismiss those cases,” he said.

Sgt. Ray Kelly, a Sheriff’s Office spokesman, referred all questions to the district attorney’s office.

“The DA came in early and took over the investigation,” Kelly said, noting that the Sheriff’s Office has turned over all relevant information.

On July 31, Woods emailed Sheriff Greg Ahern about an illegal recording between one of his attorneys and a client. Defense attorneys had received the footage in discovery.

Ahern responded to Woods, “I am told that if this did occur that it was a onetime occurrence.” The same email copied Sheriff’s Office command staff, and instructed them to provide training to deputies and investigators “to ensure that all protected/privilege conversations are protected.”

The messages touched off a flurry of internal emails about the training, with one from Lt. Timothy Schellenberg telling Russell “it has become a big issue for the Sheriff.”

A day later, Russell apologized in an email to Schellenberg, who oversees the sheriff’s investigations unit, “for the headache and added work this has caused you.” Hours later Russell sent another email detailing other cases that could be scrutinized.

The first case Russell laid out involved a grand theft investigation of three juveniles, according to the partially redacted record. One of the suspects was placed in an interview room and “his presence in the room was recorded,” Russell wrote.

Russell said he called public defender Graciela Estrada on his cell phone, allowed the juvenile to speak to her, and Russell left the room.

The second incident involved a juvenile assault victim who was also a suspect in an auto theft. After noting the DVR was recording, Russell said he stepped out of the room as public defender Brian Amaya met with the juvenile.

In the third case, Russell wrote, “This is the case you are well aware of.”

At no point did Russell note who specifically started the recordings or whether anyone stopped the roll as the privileged conversations took place.

After revelations of the first recording that led to charges being filed against Russell, Woods asked a judge to issue a standing order that would prohibit the Sheriff’s Office from unlawfully recording privileged communications. Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O’Malley pushed back on the motion, saying it was unnecessary.

“It assumes that all officers will break the law unless there is a lawful order not to break the law,” O’Malley argued.

Judge C. Don Clay ultimately denied the request, but he said he would reconsider the issue if the problem was systemic.

Russell, who is currently on paid administrative leave, faces up to five years in prison if convicted on all current charges. His next court appearance is scheduled for Feb. 19.